LEGISLATION AND JURIS- HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 7. SALE OF FOOD ANd drugs. The Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, which, he said, was introduced in the House of Commons in consequence of the failure of previous legislation on the subject. The present Bill was mainly based on the report of a Select Committee, and related to the offence of mixing with any article of food or with drugs anything injurious to health, or selling the same. In order to meet reasonable objections, exemptions from penalty were allowed in certain cases. With regard to the article of tea, he mentioned that great adulteration was practised in China, and the Bill would therefore enable the authorities of the Custom House to inspect the tea before it was brought into consumption.-Lord MORLEY believed that the Act of 1872 had been effectual in correcting much of the adulteration which existed before, and he mentioned some points which he thought would require consideration on the next stage of the Bill.Lord REDESDALE observed that as by the Bill the seller would, in certain cases, be protected from punishment if he labelled the article sold as being a mixture, it ought to be incumbent on him to state also the nature and percentage of the mixture. Lord COTTESLOE believed it would be quite beyond the power of the officers of the Custom House to examine the imported tea efficiently.The Bill was read a second time. Tuesday, June 8. INNS OF COURT BILL. On the motion for going into committee, the LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition against the Bill from the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. The noble and learned lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. Their Lordships having gone into committee on the Bill, some amendments proposed by the LORD CHANCELLOR were agreed to without discussion, and the Bill at once passed through committee. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL. different tale upon the subject of their alleged right acting as solicitors are in many cases well known, and do large businesses as such, often to the serious injury of those who, in ignorance of the law, are by their representations induced to employ them, solicitors may fairly ask that the Legislature should afford some easier means of enforcing some smaller penalty for each offence, such penalties (to use the concluding words of the 26th section of the Attorneys' Act 1860) to be "applied in like manner as fines imposed for practising without a stamped certi. ficate are now by law applicable." The intervention of the Attorney-General is an unneces sary impediment, while the right of action to recover penalties for acting illegally as a soli. citor might, perhaps, be confined to any incorporated law society in England and Wales. It must not be forgotten that if a solicitor is uncertificated, and at such a time issues a plaint in a County Court, or prepares an instrument relating to real or personal estate, or is concerned in any matter or suit in law or equity for another person, and for fee and reward, he is liable to a penalty of £50 under the 59th section of the Stamp Act, as well (in our opinion) as to the other heavy penalties to which unauthorised persons are liable under the Stamp Act and Attorneys' Acts. It is certainly monstrous that while a solicitor is hemmed in with all these and other liabilities, penalties, and imposts, yet that legal quacks of all kinds should, among other things, by the conduct of County Court business, or the preparation of leases, offend with impunity against our protective statutes. IN Upper Canada admission to the Legal Profes sion rests with the law society of that part of the Dominion. This society exercises the power of calling students to the Bar as well as imparting professional education to them, and the first step towards admission to the Profession there, is to be admitted into the society as students either as graduates or in the junior class, and there are four kinds of examinations, preliminary, intermediate, for certificates of fitness, and for call to the Bar. All students are described as "students at law." University graduates in the Faculty of Arts are entitled to admission without service or examination. Once admitted into the Profession & Canadian lawyer can act in his Profession, without restriction such as that which obtains in this country. THERE are few more interesting questions to a very large number of solicitors than that of what constitutes the offence (on the part of an authorised person) of, representing himself to be, or acting as, a solicitor. No doubt a disregard of professional rights and interests for years past, to which solicitors have, by their inertness and want of organisation, been a party, has contributed largely to undoubted misconceptions on this subject. Stamp Acts, intended to protect the revenues, though really operating to protect professional rights also, have always contained a prohibition against unauthorised persons preparing certain instruments for fee and reward, under a penalty of £50. The 26th section of the last Stamp Act (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), provided that this penalty is to be sued for by information in the Court of Exchequer, in England, in the name of the Attorney-General, and may be recovered with full costs of suit. In the case of offences under this Act the solicitor of the Inland Revenue Commissioners should therefore be communicated with, and inasmuch as he and his clients consider the question of revenue only, and not the interests of the Profession, an undoubted indisposition on Lord HAMPTON, in moving the second reading their part not to prosecute, is not to be wondered of this Bill, said that it had passed through the at. But the question is, whether the provisions other House, and was founded on the recommenda- of the Stamp Act, read in conjunction with the tions of a commission on the Contagious Diseases Attorneys' Act 1843, sect. 2, and the Attor Act. The commission recommended that clauses neys' Act 1860, sect. 26, do not amount to this, 50 and 51 of the Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, should that to prepare (for fee and reward) any instrube amended with the view of affording greater ment relating to real or personal estate or any protection to female children. The commission proceedings in law or equity, is to act unlawfully named fourteen as the age up to which consent as a solicitor. We are confident that this is the would not apply; but in the House of Commons, proper construction of these Acts, and that such after a full consideration of the subject, must have been the intention of the Legislature. thirteen was substituted. Though, as a member Wrongfully acting as a solicitor cannot simply of the Royal Commission, he had concurred in mean using the name of or falsely pretending to be naming fourteen, and still thought that ought to de facto a solicitor. We admit that the wording be the age inserted in the Bill, he was willing to of the 12th section of the Attorneys and Solicitors accept the amendment, and to move the second Act of last session is such that it is more difficult reading of the Bill.--Lord STANLEY of ALDER- to apply this argument to their meaning, but the LEY thought that the end of clause 2 was in- former Acts remain in full force, and we are of sufficient, since if this Bill became law a man opinion that where, for argument sake, a County might commit an offence against it the day before Court agent prepares particulars for a County it was passed, an information might be laid Court summons, and issues such a summons as a against him the day after it passed. and he could paid agent, he is acting as a solicitor not only not then be tried under either the old or the new contrary to the provisions of sect. 36 of the Attor law. Such a case occurred on the change of the neys' Act of 1813, but also that he is liable to a law on the 20th July 1820, when larceny of a certain penalty of £50 under sect. 26 of the Attorneys' Act amount ceased to be a capital offence, and it was 1860 for acting as a solicitor within the meaning of held that a person convicted in September for an sect. 2 of the Act of 1843; and again, that many offence committed six days before the 20th July of such persons are liable to a penalty of £10 under couldnot be punished under either the old or the new the 12th section of the Act of last session for prelaw. The word "abuse" also seemed to be super-tending that they are by law recognised as qualified fluous, and only led to confusion and doubt, as to act as solicitors in County Court business, was shown by a dispute as to the meaning of the the transaction of which is confined by statute word "abuse" among the Barons Pollock, Wilde, to solicitors. We urge, therefore, that as the Bramwell, and Channell, in the Exchequer, Re law now stands, when so-called County Court Thompson, 26th Nov. 1860.-Lord LYTTELTON agents act as such, not only are they guilty thought that certain amendments would be neces- of contempt of court, and cannot recover their sary in the Bill, and ought to be made when it got fees, as provided by sect. 36 of the Act of 1843, into committee.-Lord COLERIDGE pointed out but further, such persons so acting are liable to a that an amendment in the wording of the 4th penalty of £50 as having acting as solicitors within clause would certainly be necessary. He ap- the meaning of the above statutes. Then, again, as proved the change which the Bill was intended to to the Stamp Act, we contend that to prepare docueffect. The Bill was then read a second time. ments therein forbidden to be prepared by other than lawyers, is for a person so preparing them to act as a solicitor, and thus-apart from the rights of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to sue for penalties under the 26th section of the Stamp Act-to incur a penalty of £50 under the Attorneys' Acts, as before pointed out. In conclusion, we recommend this view of the construction of the statutes here referred to, to the Legal Practitioners' Society. If the Inland Revenue authorities sue for a penalty under the Stamp Act, it must be by information in the Court of Exchequer in the name of the Attorney General, while, if a penalty under the Attorneys' Acts is sued for, it must be by action in a Superior or County Court, brought with the sanction of the Attorney General in the name of the Incorporated Law Society. Now, inas has persons' SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. A SOLICITOR of Derby, as reported in our last issue, has taken an important objection before the bench of magistrates there, and a Portsmouth solicitor last week took the same objection before the magistrates of the latter borough, we are sorry to say not entirely with the same results, so far as the rights of the Profession are concerned, while in each case the decisions point to the necessity for the Inland Revenue authorities being represented by a professional man in such prosecutions. As regards the professional question the supervisors of excise told a somewhat THE County Courts Bill is likely to become law should be confined to executing warrants of committal, and levying under executions. In bankruptcy business, a large part of the work undertaken by the high bailiffs of County Courts, they are not well fitted to discharge, as, for instance, the insertion of statutory notices in the London Gazette, serving injunctions, and other orders of the court. Where personal service is necessary, great delay in proceedings, is often occasioned by the carelessness and inattention of the high bailiff's assistants. If County Court registrars can but find time to communicate with the Solicitor-General on this subject, the remedy we suggest can be easily accomplished, leaving the scale of remuneration to be paid to solicitors to be determined, if found necessary, by rules and orders to be framed by County Court judges. The duties of high bailiffs should be analogous to those of sheriffs' officers. At present they are quite otherwise, and promise to be more so. IN another column we publish a letter from a solicitor, suggesting that the publishers of the Law List should set opposite the name of each professional man who has won distinction at law examinations, the nature of the honours gained, and, moreover, that where a professional man is the author of published works on legal subjects the works should be also named. We know of no objection to the proposals, and should like to see it adopted, at all events as regards the former suggestion. Our correspondent urges that the winning of honours is evidenced by a gift of books of comparatively little value. We must point out that this is not so as regards the Bar, the students for admission to which compete for valuable exhibitions. One of the results of Lord Selborne's educational proposals would, we hope, be to throw these open to solicitors for competition. Many solicitors have in pamphlets urged that our branch of the Profession has been unjustly and, indeed, unlawfully excluded from participating in the wealth of the Inns of Court. We have heard much of late about offences against protective statutes, committed by County Court agents and persons who call themselves, and are called and sometimes act as accountants, and also by auctioneers and estate agents. Of even greater importance is the growing tendency on the part of "official liquidators" to undertake solicitors' work. We hear of cases in which summonses have been prepared, affidavits drawn and filed, and copies taken by these gentlemen or their subordinates acting on instructions. This is likely to become a serious evil, and it behoves the officials of the Court of Chancery to arrest it at once by vigilance and, if necessary, rules and orders to meet the difficulty. IN replying, at the recent banquet at the Trinity House, for Her Majesty's Ministers," the Lord Chancellor is reported to have stated that it was probable that a portion of the business now transacted in the Divorce Court would soon be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty. What seems to us to be a far more pressing matter is the question of the desirability of improving the practice and procedure of the former court. The sight to be witnessed on motion day in the Divorce Court is usually very bewildering to the uninitiated. One member of the Bar after another obtains an audience of the Court, merely to state that on such a day a decree nisi was granted in such a case, and to ask that it be made absolute, upon which the learned judge nods assent. Surely suitors may be spared this unnecessary expense. Except upon notice that the application is to be opposed, it might well be made to a Registrar in chambers; in fact, the decree absolute should rather be a side bar rule, as in common law, in certain cases. Ir really seems that the Government intend to recognise the claims which the solicitors' branch of the Profession has-that the offices of solicitors to the several public departments, should be filled by solicitors, and not by members of the Bar. The posts of Assistant-Solicitor to the Treasury, and Solicitor to the Admiralty, are, we believe, still vacant, and had it been intended to appoint barristers to them they would, we expect, ere this have been filled up. It is astonishing that Barristers should be found ready to undertake solicitors' duties in view of the reasons given for preserving the barrier between the two branches. We believe that a representation upon the subject of appointing solicitors to the offices to which we refer was recently made by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society to the Government. MR. TILLETT, solicitor, the member of Parliament for Norwich, who lately lost his seat upon petition, is clearly not wanting in resolution and determination. His election cost him nearly £3000, and the petition has cost about £5000, though lasting only three days, or rather two days and an hour. This, too, is the second time which he has been unseated, and the third time that he fought for the seat, being defeated once, and twice winning, though only to be unseated. MR. J. W. MIDDLETON, a solicitor, of Leeds, has been assaulted in an odd sort of way. He was conducting a meeting of creditors in his own office, when a picture frame dealer, who was amongst those present, became greatly excited, and struck Mr. Middleton a violent blow in the face. A police officer was sent for, who declined to interfere on the ground that he had not witnessed the assault. A warrant was then obtained, and the defendant was apprehended as he was on the point of leaving the town by train. He was brought before the magistrates and remanded, bail being refused. Solicitors are often called on to discharge duties to their clients in the presence of others, which duties clash with the interests of such others, and anything like the infliction of personal violence on a professional man who is merely discharging a quasi public duty cannot be too strongly condemned, and must not be too leniently dealt with. It is not long since that we reported a case in which an unruly person was ejected by order of a solicitor from his (the solicitor's) office, at which a meeting of creditors was being held, and at which such person was present. In that instance it was decided that the expulsion was unlawful. We must here add our entire disapproval of the conduct of the Leeds police officer. The assault is reported to have been committed in the presence of several disinterested witnesses, and yet the officer refused to take the defendant into custody, owing, no doubt, to a mistaken notion of his duty. movement. This they have declined to do for the double reason that they are not much in favour of such an exclusive policy, and further that the funds of the society do not warrant the adoption of such a course. In this view we, for the most part, agree. However, we think the proposal can be carried out independently of the society, and we approve the suggestion of a correspondent that a company should be first formed, and that the 40th Middlesex R.V.C. having its head quarters in Gray's-inn, and most of the officers of which, are solicitors, would be a good regiment in which, with the sanction of the commanding officer, to cominence the movement. We shall be happy to put any gentlemen in communication with each other who are prepared to set the ball rolling. A PRESTON solicitor calls our attention to the use of the word "agent" in the third line of the second clause of the Legal Practitioners' Bill, and very properly suggests, either that it should be omitted or its meaning defined. We are sur. prised that this should have been overlooked, for it is a word the construction put upon which in connection with the transaction of legal work has led to much disputation, and, indeed, annoyance to the Profession. It is a word to be avoided, and its presence in the Bill is to be accounted for, by the fact that the part of the second section in which it appears is merely a reproduction of the wording of the original Stamp Act. WE are glad to be able to announce that an im. portant meeting of the solicitors of Preston, convened at the instance of the Local Law Society, was held on Tuesday last, when the provisions of the Legal Practitioners' Bill, which stood for second reading on Friday, was fully discussed. Unanimous resolutions were passed, admitting the urgent necessity for this Bill becoming law, and the honorary secretary (Mr. Thomas Wilson) was directed to forward copies of such resolutions to the borough and county members. We have reason for believing that in Preston, in addition the existence of the proverbial legal quacks of all kinds, ordinary money lenders are in the habit of undertaking the work and duties of professional men. WE are glad to notice that in the case of a court martial recently held at Portsmouth, an officer of the prisoner's regiment was permitted to assist him in his defence, by reading to the court the written statement of the accused, and by examining witnesses on his behalf. It does not, how-to ever, appear that the officer in question was allowed in any form to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, still it is a step in the right direction, the more so, seeing that soldiers and sailors are not usually in a position to secure professional assistance, the full benefit of which can never be secured for an accused person until the tedious and ineffectual system of conducting these tribunals, is made to conform to modern usage and requirements. Prosecutions of the kind referred to, ought to be conducted as fairly and with as much liberty to an accused as would be enjoyed under similar circumstances in a trial by the civil authorities. THERE are not many country practitioners living who remember the days when solicitors used to appear as advocates in many of the courts of quarter sessions in England and Wales. There were, and indeed we ought to say there are, various rules or customs upon this subject, existing in different counties and boroughs. In the south of England the right of a solicitor to address these courts arises when there are no more than three members of the Bar present; and the story is told of an old and experienced solicitor, seeing four youthful members of the Bar present, and wishing in the interests of his client, to conduct a case himself, inducing another solicitor to avail himself of the services of one of the four barristers under such circumstances as necessitated his (the barrister's) leaving the court, upon which the soliciThe questor's right to address the court arose. tion is really one of precedence, and it is hardly correct to say that solicitors have not an audience in courts of borough and county quarter sessions. They have the right, only under circumstances which seldom occur now-a-days, and which vary in different parts of the country. It is important that no opportunity should be lost of asserting this right whenever and wherever occasion and opportunity offer. We shall be glad to publish any information as to custom upon this subject, which may be furnished by correspondents. There is, we believe, no record of any similar right enjoyed by solicitors at courts of Oyer and Terminer; nor is there any statute law affecting or regulating the general question. WE have received of late many letters from gentlemen serving under articles of clerkship, and a few from those recently admitted on the rolls advocating the formation in London of a volunteer corps, membership of which should be restricted to solicitors after the manner of the Inns of Court R. V. corps, from which solicitors and articled clerks are excluded. This proposal is by no means new, and about this time last year the subject was referred to in these columns. On more than one occasion the council of the Incorporated Law Society have considered proposals to give, substantial aid and encouragement to such a The Honorary Secretary of the Legal Practitioners' Society (Mr. Charles Ford) requests us to state that the number of letters he has received from members of the Profession upon the subject of the society's work, during the past fortnight, are so many, that delay cannot be avoided in replying to many of them. Those are receiving first attention which relate to the Lega Practitioners' Bill now before Parliament. A SOLICITOR writes to us as follows: "The Profession at Derby do not trouble much about their general interests, and an attempt to get up a local law society soon came to grief when tried some time ago. There is a society at Nottingham, fifteen miles away, and it has been mooted that we should join them in a society for the two counties, but nothing as come of it as yet. The Incorporated Law Society is in bad odour with country solicitors, as a rule, and one constantly hears complaints that it does nothing practically to advance our interests. I hope we are going to have a change with regard to our relations with the Bar. If I could go to the Bar without wasting three years (I would not object to one year), I should probably do so." WE hear for the first time that the Edinburgh Law Society has lately had under its consideration the Legal Practitioners' Bill, and a resolution has been adopted to petition Parliament in favour of its becoming law, subject to some slight alteration. The Bill as introduced by Mr. Charley and Mr. Gordon, does not extend to Scotland and Ireland, while in the case of Scotch writers to the signet, a strong feeling prevails in favour of extending the proposed Act to that part of the Kingdom. The Scotch Law Society considers that any society of qualified practitioners should have a right to sue in the name of any one of its members, the object being to get rid of the difficulty there would be if private individuals assumed the disagreeable office of prosecutor. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS ACT 1870 (33 & 34 VICT. c. 28), ss. 4, 8, 9-ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.-Declaration that the defendant, being the owner of certain shares in the B. Gas Works Company, and also lessee of the said gas works from the said company, agreed in writing with the plaintiff, an attorney and solicitor, as follows: "I hereby agree to pay you a commission of 5 per cent. for all money you will obtain for me to purchase shares in the B. Gas Works in lieu of your costs; and I hereby agree to be prepared within six months from 1st March 1873 to sell the said gas works; and for the consideration aforesaid I hereby agree that you shall have the carrying out of the sale, and I agree to pay you a commission of £4 per cent. on the purchase money in lieu of your costs." Averments, that the plaintiff did, at defendant's request, obtain money to be lent to the defendant amounting to £645 for the purposes aforesaid, whereby the defendant was enabled to purchase other shares, and that defendant did, within six months of the said 1st March, procure an agreement to be made between the said B. Gas Works Company and the defendant and the local board of B., for the sale, by the said company and the defendant to the said local board, of the said gas works, and the interest of the defendant therein as lessee thereof, for the sum of £6661 10s. Averment of all conditions, precedent, &c., performed and breach assigned, that the defendant did not employ the plaintiff in or about the carry ing out the said sale, &c., or permit him to have the carrying out of the same, and did not, but has wholly refused to pay to the plaintiff the said commission of 4 per cent., or any commission on the purchase-money or otherwise. Plea, that the agreement was an agreement in writing made by the plaintiff, an attorney and solicitor, with the defendant as his client, respecting the amount and manner of payment for future services, fees, charges, and disbursements, in respect of business to be done by the plaintiff as such attorney and solicitor, and as a conveyancer, for the defendant as his client, the same not being business to be done in any action at law or suit in equity, or in any court, and the amount payable not exceeding £50, and the same was by both parties intended to be made in pursuance of the provisions of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act 1870. Held, by the Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., and Bramwell, Pollock, and Amphlett, BB.) on demurrer to the plea, that the action was maintainable and that the plea afforded no answer to it because the Act (ss. 4, 8, and 9) applied only to that portion of the agreement which related to the payment of the plaintiff by commission in lieu of costs, and not to the whole or entire agreement, for the breach of which, in nat employing the plaintiff, the action was brought: (Rees v. Williams, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 462, Ex.) COURT OF CHANCERY. (Before Vice Chancellor Sir C. HALL.) Relations between solicitor and client. THIS was a case of considerable importance as to the relations between a solicitor and his client. The suit was instituted by the Misses Major, two maiden ladies, for the purpose of having a voluntary settlement executed by them in favour of their solicitor, the defendant, Mr. Nicholas Gedye, set aside on the ground of undue influ ence. and which was also comprised in the settlement, Greene, Q.C. and McNaghten appeared for the sight of that, after the execution of the settlement, Gedye's influence as the plaintiffs' solicitor continued. The investments of the property were changed in a manner which could not be recognised by this court for a moment, and the money was thereby lost. The trustees were merely Gedye's nominees, and the powers of investment were such that under his control the property could be frittered away and lost as it was. There was, therefore, this infirmity in the deed, that a solicitor had advised his clients to execute an improper settlement, appointing trustees to do his bidding. That was a sufficient ground of itself for setting aside the deed, and the costs of the trustee could not be allowed. As to Miss Chase, her interest was merely equitable, and she took with full notice that Gedye was solicitor to the parties making the settlement, yet she and her advisers remained satisfied as to its validity. He had said enough to show that her contention could not be sustained. Under all the circum. stances, therefore, the settlement must be delivered up to be cancelled. HEIRS AT LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. GOMERY (Jas.), Cheltenham, Gloucester, heir-at-law, to come in by June 30, at the chambers of V.C.M. July 7, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. WALL (Wm.), Kingsland-crescent, Hackney. Middlesex, Protestant dissenting minister, deceased. Next of kin to come in by July 1, at the chambers of V.C. H. July 7, at the said chambers, at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK; AUSTRALIA DIRECT STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (LIMITED'. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY LAST DAY OF PROOF. BRISTOW (Alfred R.), Cleveland-row, St. James's, Middle The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the case appeared to him to be very clear. The defendant Gedye had for years previous to the execution of the settlement in question been the plaintiffs' professional adviser, and, according to his answer, he had been acting for them in litigation of an extensive nature, and generally in their monetary and other transactions. It was said by him, and perhaps not untruly, that the plaintiffs were grateful to him for his services, and wished to make him some return for them. Accordingly a meeting was arranged between the plaintiffs and Gedye, at which the mode of making Gedye a recompense was discussed. The ladies expressed a great wish to make their wills, leaving him all their property, UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE but Gedye suggested that their intention should be effected by a settlement, and it was finally decided that it should be effected by means of a settlement. He must take it that that decision was come to under the advice of Gedye, and it appeared to him, under all the circumstances of the case, that the advice so given was not the advice which ought to have been given to these ladies. In order to carry out their intention it was not necessary to tie their hands, as there was no intention on their part to make an immediate disposition of their property in Gedye's favour. But his judgment must not be considered as depending on the fact of the settlement not containing any power of revocation, but on all the circumstances of the case. Gedye knew that the settlement could not be prepared without the plaintiffs having independent advice, and he accordingly named two or three firms of solicitors of great respectability, one being the firm of which Mr. Crouch was a member. Mr. Crouch's firm was selected, and the ladies then wrote to Mr. Crouch a letter containing instructions for the proposed settlement. It was manifest from the contents of that letter that the plaintiffs could not have concocted it without assistance from Gedye. It was, in fact, Gedye's letter. It appeared that Mr. Crouch endeavoured to have an interview with Gedye, but failed to see him, and it also appeared from Mr. Crouch's evidence that the ladies desired that the deed should be irrevocable. The difficulty which Gedye had now to meet was this; that the instructions sent to Mr. Crouch were that the deed should be irrevocable, and it was clear that at that time Gedye had so far arranged and discuseed the matter with these ladies as their adviser, that it had become too late for them to withdraw their determination that the deed should be irrevocable, and it could not be said that they went into Mr. Crouch's hands to receive independent advice. The case was not, therefore, from its inception, one in which the plaintiffs had independent advice. But the matter did not rest there. Mr. Crouch wished to do his duty in the matter, but what was done was this: It seemed to be part of the arrangement that Mr. Crouch should be employed, but the fact was that everything went through Gedye's hands after Mr. Crouch was employed, and the draft was altered by and instructions emanated from Gedye, although under the handwriting of his clients, the plaintiffs. The instructions sent to Mr. Crouch, and the nature of the alterations in the draft were such as could only have been suggested by an astute lawyer, and all the alterations made were in Gedye's own interest. The deed, in fact, passed through Gedye's hands from beginning to end, Mr. Crouch not being aware of the communications that were passing between Gedye and the plaintiffs. This was, therefore, a settlement executed by the plaintiffs acting under the advice of Gedye, and under such circumstances it could not for a moment stand, or be supported, as a gift from the plaintiffs. The improvident nature of the deed also called for very strong observation. Among other things it comprised nearly the whole The of the plaintiffs' property, the trifling remainder, consisting of furniture and other things, which could not easily be dealt with under a settlement, being given to Gedye by will. There was not even enough property left to bury the plaintiffs with. Anything more improvident than this settlement could not be conceived. It could not, moreover, be lost It appeared that in the years 1856 and 1858 the plaintiffs made various advances, amounting to £4900, to the defendant, who in 1860 agreed to execute in their favour a mortgage, when required, of certain property. About that time the plaintiffs consulted Gedye upon the subject of their making their wills, and expressed their intention of leaving him or his son the bulk of their property. Gedye thereupon suggested that they should execute a settlement containing a limitation in his favour after their deaths. A settlement was accordingly prepared and executed. It was dated 21st July 1860, and vested the greater part of the plaintiffs' property in trustees, upon trust for investment, and to pay the income to the plaintiffs for their respective lives, and after their deaths to pay certain sums to such of the plaintiffs' relatives therein named as should be living at the death of the survivor of the plaintiffs, and, subject thereto, upon trust for Gedye absolutely. There was also a provision that the trustees should employ Gedye as their solicitor, and pay him his professional charges. The deed contained no power of revocation. Upon Gedye's recommendation a Mr. Crouch, another solicitor, was employed in the preparation of the deed, but Gedye himself perused the draft and suggested the various alterations which were made in it. The instructions to Mr. Crouch were sent to him in the form of a letter, signed by the plaintiffs, who, however, contended that they were throughout the transaction acting under the advice and influence of the defendant Gedye, and that, notwithstanding the employment of Mr. Crouch, there was never any cessation of the relation of solicitor and client between the defendant and themselves. plaintiffs also both executed wills leaving such of their property as was not comprised in the settlement to Gedye absolutely. Various changes of a most irregular kind were from time to time made in the investments of the settled property by the trustees, at the instigation of Gedye, and eventu. ally the interest on the £4900 due from Gedye, Mansion House, London, and Fern Lodge, Hampstead Heath, Middlesex, public accountant. June 30; John Hollams, jun., solicitor, Mincing-lane, London. July 10; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. CORPE (Alfred R.), 15, King-street, St. James's, Middlesex, tailor. July 10; Raven and Hare, solicitors, 2, Harcourtbuildings, Temple, London. July 20; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. CURTIS (William), Woodbine-grove, Penge, Surrey, timber FAULCONBRIDGE (Alfred), the elder, Bulwell, Notts, farmer. KIDD (Houston), 70, Mark-lane, London, and Amhurst twelve o'clock. LANCASTER AND CO., Colne, Lancaster, cotton spinners. METHVEN (Jas. A.), Oporto, Portugal, gas engineer. July MORTIMORE (Richard), Cullompton, Devon, tanner, miller, PENGELLY (Oliver V.), Barnstaple, Devon, wine and spirit o'clock. RAINES (Wm.), Wyton-in-Holderness, York. June 30; Stephen E. Todd, solicitor, Beverley. June 7; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. ROBERTS (John), Beeches, Upton Bishop, and of Pinfold, Linton, Esq. June 24; John Turner, solicitor, 61, Careystreet, Lincoln's-inn, London. July 1; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. ROBINSON (Robert), Beathwaite Green, Levens, Westmore- SHEPPARD (John N), Towcester, Northampton, gentleman. STEAD (Richard). Leeds, maltster. June 25; G. W. H. STORY (Geo.), 3, King's-place, Commercial-road East, Mid- SUMMERLIN (Thos. H.), 47, Compton-road, Canonbury, and CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. BAGOT (Col. Alexander), Lady Cross Lodge, Southampton, BAWDEN (Wm.), 1, Alexander-square, Brompton, Middlesex, gentleman. July 1; 0. March, solicitor, 4, Pall-mall, Middlesex. BAYLEY (Rev. Wm. R.), Cassington, Oxford, and of Thorn- BETTY (JAS.), Walmer-road, Notting-hill, Middlesex, BESHELL (John), formerly of Canterbury, corn and hop fac- DAWES (Maria), Hyde Park-gardens, Middlesex, widow. July ELPHINSTONE (Hon. John F.), Morpeth-terrace, Middlesex, FARMER (Edward T.), 106, Jamaica-road (formerly 5, Char- FISHER (John and Dorothy), Kendal, Westmoreland, timber FORD alias HAND(WM), formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stafford, late of Hartcliffe Thurlstone, Penistone, York, farmer. Aug. 31; Dransfield and Sons, solicitors, Penistone, York. FREER (Wm.), Stonygate), Knighton, Leicester, Esq. July 13; Freer, Reeve, and Co., solicitors, New-street, Leicester. HAINSWORTH (Wm.), Hitchin, Hertford, farmer. Aug. 10; J. G. Hepburn and Sons, solicitors, Bird-in-Hand-court, 76, Cheapside, London. HARRINGTON (Mary), Devonshire-st, Carlisle, and of Deer Park, near Carlisle, widow. July 10; John R. Donald, solicitor, Carlisle. HARRIS (Frederick), Oakfield-terrace, Gateacre, near Liver- HATTERSLEY (Edwd.), formerly of New Laithes, Carlton, Regent Wm.), Frome, St. Quintin, Dorset, gentleman, HENNING Sept. 1; Slade and Co., solicitors, Yeovil. HUDSON (John K.), 2, Plowden-buildings, Temple, and 8, JACKSON (Thos. R.). 17, Cambridge-crescent, Edgbaston, JOHNSON (Benjamin), Yorkley, West Dean, Gloucester, LAMB (Geo. H, late of 11. Carlisle-gardens, Kensington MASON (GEO. H.), 7, Theresa-terrace, Hammersmith MAXWELL (Lydia), late of 21, Bayford-street, Hackney, NICHOLL (Wm. H.), Ruthin House, Weston-super-Mare, NICHOLSON (Frances), Guino, Whitehaven, Cumberl and, PAINTER (Geo.), formerly of 130, Leadenhall-street, London, street West, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. SCOTT (Edmund), East Cranbrook, Kingsbury Episcopi, SCOTT (Duncan), Queen's Elm, 241, Fulham-road, Middlesex, Arnold, solicitors, 59, Lincoln's-Inn-fields, Middlesex. Blackburn. Middlesex, fishmonger. July 10; Jas. H. Townend, soli TUFNELL (Elizabeth), 14. Regency-square, Brighton, widow. July 1; John Ingram, solicitor, Steyning, Sussex. London. REPORTS OF SALES. Wednesday, June 2. By Messrs. WEAVER and MOORE, at Tewkesbury. The Lawn Field, containing 12a. 3r. 5p.-sold for £625. The pasturage for 46 sheep on Eldersfield Marsh-sold for €137. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. CALLS TO THE BAR. THE undermentioned gentlemen have this week been called to the Bar : Moon By the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. By the Honourable Society of the Middle By Messrs. KINGSTON and PRATT, at Holbeach. for £2000. Maltkiln Close, containing Sa. Ir. 35p.-sold for £1440. £510. By Mr. J. SALTER, at the Mart. Kentish-town. Bellina-villas, Hampton-lodge, with stabling and ground rents-sold for £150. sold for £1800. Monday, June 7. No. 112, Camberwell-road, freehold-sold for £1200. Esq., B.A., Oxford; Charles Newman Watts, Esq.; Nos. 13 and 14, Cumberland-place, and 13, Bath-place, same ford; Arthur Thomas Waring, Esq.; Emilius St. term-sold for £510. Wimbledon.-Five plots of building land-sold for £180. Greenwich.-No. 27, London-street, freehold sold for £650. Lewisham.-Nos. 19 to 22, Lethbridge-road, term 79 years sold for £760. By Messrs. CRAFTER and HARRIS, at the Mart. Clair O'Malley, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Thomas By the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn.- THE MOST ECONOMICAL MODE OF LIGHTING PREMISES, where natural daylight is obstructed, owing to the small size of windows or the proximity of buildings, is by adapting one of those useful Daylight Reflectors. Mr. Chappuis, the patentee, of 69, Fleet-street, manu. factures them of various qualities, in order to suit the purse of rich and poor. They are in general use all over London, and in almost every town of the United Kingdom; with the aid of this invention, gas being done away with in day-time, the twofold purpose of health and economy can be served thereby.-[ADVT.] ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. QUARE IMPEDIT-SIMONY-12 ANNE, STAT. 2 c. 12, s. 2-PURCHASE OF AN ESTATE, PUR AUTRE VIE, IN AN ADVOWSON-NEXT PRESENTATION.— A purchase of an estate for life in an advowson is not a purchase of the next avoidance of, or presentation to, any benefice or cure of souls within sect. 2 of 12 Anne, Stat. 2, c. 12, so as to render the presentation of himself by the purchaser (being in other respects idoneous) void by that statute, or the contract simoniacal. The first, even if it be manifestly the only exercise of his right by the purchaser of an advowson, whether pur autre vie or in fee, is not a next presentation within the above statute. At common law, the purchaser of an estate pur autre vie in an advowson, may, no less than the purchaser of an advow. son in fee, offer himself to the ordinary, and pray to be admitted on a vacancy occurring; and the bishop, provided only if he be a fit and proper person in holy orders, is bound to institute him, and has no discretion to refuse. The plaintiff, a clerk in holy orders, purchased from the tenant for life his life estate in the advowson of a rectory in 1859. In May 1873, during the lifetime of the tenant for life, the incumbent died, and in June 1873 the tenaat for life died. The plaintiff, within the proper time presented or offered himself to the bishop for institution to the living, but the bishop (the defencant) refused to admit, on the grounds (1) that the vacancy caused by the death of the incumbent was the next and only advoidance which accrued to the plaintiff after the purchase of his advowson, and that therefore his presentation of himself was void by 12 Anne, Stat. 2, c. 12, s. 2; and (2) that as a patron cannot present himself, but can only offer himself and pray to be admitted, the bishop has a discretion whe ther he will admit him or not: Held on demurrers to pleas raising these points, that (1) the contract between the plaintiff and the tenant for life was not a simoniacal contract within the statute, and (2) there was no objection to the plaintiff presenting himself for institution, and the defendant upon him so offering himself was bound to admit him: (Walsh v Bishop of Lincoln, 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 471. C. P.) COUNTY COURTS. COSTS IN COUNTY COURTS. IN the Queen's Bench Chambers on Tuesday, June 1, an important decision was given by Baron Pollock as to costs awarded by Mr. F. A. Bedwell, the judge of the County Court at Malton, Yorkshire, on the 6th May last, in a cause there before him, of Barker v. Peacock. The facts were these: An action was brought for £35, the damages claimed by plaintiff for an alleged breach of warranty by the defendant on the sale of a hunter, and after the examination and cross-examination of the plaintiff it became apparent that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the district of that court, although the plaint had been entered by leave of the registrar and summons issued thereon. Mr. Richardson, of Thirsk, as advocate for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's examination and cross-examination, and before the cause had further proceeded or any other witness examined, raised the question of jurisdiction; when, after discussion, in which Mr. H. W. Pearson Malton, who appeared as advocate for the plaintiff, took part, the judge allowed the objection nonsuiting the plaintiff, whose advocate then applied for costs to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. This the judge ordered, although it was pointed out that the plaintiff was in error in suing in the wrong court, and ought to have known where his own cause of action arose, but the judge replied that he made the order because he thought the objection came so late, Clerk of the Peace. Thomas Lamb. Mark Whyley. S. Sanderson. T. R. T. Hodgson. William D. Batte. John H. Barker. E. Titchener. Isaac Preston, jun. T. G. Archer Charles Bulmer. Richard Toller. G. B. Aldridge. Wm. W. Hayward. Francis Hodding. Edward B. Potts. Thomas Heald. Walter Bailey. and, being a preliminary one, it ought to have been taken earlier. Mr. Richardson, in reply, contended that although his client knew that no could not say where (until after his examination) part of the contract was made at Malton, yet he the plaintiff would date his contract and cause of action on which he sued, and that the objection was taken at the right and earliest time. From this the judge dissented, and thereupon decided that the plaintiff should be nonsuited (the cause being afterwards struck out), and that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs, afterwards taxed at £16 1s. the Queen's Bench by making an application for Against this decision the defendant appealed to a writ of prohibition to stay further proceedings in the action. Forbes appeared in support of the application for the writ, and read affidavits setting out the facts, and relying upon 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 79; 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 10; and 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 14; and Lawford v. Partridge (26 L. J. 147, Ex.) Butterworth, for plaintiff, quoted 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 88, and the above Act and section of 30 & 31 Vict. Pollock, B. after reading the affidavits, said that hardships had arisen on account of the County Court judge being unable to give costs to a defendant when the plaintiff was nonsuited; but by 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142 the judge was empowered to give costs to the defendant who had been wrongfully troubled by the plaintiff's conduct. That certainly did not give the judge power to deal with the costs as he had done in this case; he had no power to do as he had done. The judge and there was argument sufficient to show that had no power to give costs against the defendant, and a writ of prohibition must issue. However, as the mistake was that of the judge, no costs would be granted, as it was not usual. [The cause was afterwards tried at Easing. wold County Court on 3rd June 1875 on the merits, and resulted in a nonsuit, which plaintiff Barker elected to be, and costs allowed to defendant.] BLACKBURN COUNTY COURT. (Before W. A. HULTON, Esq., Judge). HIS HONOUR delivered judgment as follows:- three years. His duty is to keep the members in good order, and to preserve due decorum amongst them at all the meetings of the Society. The vice-president is elected in the same manner, and remains in office for the same term as the presi dent. His duty is to officiate in the absence of the president, or at any time by his request. The secretary is appointed at the annual meeting in December. His duties are multifarious, but it is not material to consider them particularly in the present case. The society is governed by the committee of management, consisting of twenty members. They remain in office for one year, but may be re-elected. The meetings of the members are held on the third Tuesday in March, in June, in September, and in December; on which last-named day the annual meeting of the society is held. The mode of election of the committee of management is pointed out by the seventh rule, the material part of which is in these words, "The society shall be governed by a committee of management to consist of twenty members, to be chosen by the members generally assembled at the annual meeting in December, and to remain in office one year; at the expiration of which term all the retiring committeemen shall be eligible for rehis name and address attested by the name and election; but every candidate to be brought before the forthcoming annual meeting shall have address of his mover and seconder, handed over to the collector of the said candidate's district at least twenty-eight days previous to the date of the said annual meeting; and that all the names thus received, without alteration or mutilation, shall, by the said collectors, be given into the care of the secretary at least fourteen days before the ward of the borough of Blackburn; and that the date of the annual meeting; and that no more than three candidates be elected from any one secretary be empowered to arrange the order in which the wards shall be brought before the members generally assembled at the annual meeting, & majority of whose votes shall decide the election in December, 1874, Mr. Austin was the president, of each member respectively." Before the meeting Mr. Elijah Holt was the vice-president, and Mr. Crossley was the secretary of the society. In November of that year there was a feeling of dis satisfaction in the society, and it was determined by some of the members to attempt to effect a change in the governing body of the society. Papers in the usual form nominating the candidates were issued. The annual meeting was held on the 15th Dec. 1874, being the third Tuesday in that month. At the hearing it was objected in the first instance that the meeting was packed and riotous, but I had no sufficient riotous as to be illegal. There was evidence laid evidence before me on either of the points to say that the meeting was so packed or so before me which brought me to the conclusion that there was more zeal on the one side than on the other, and that one party was earlier in the room than the other; but there was no evidence that anyone was unable to get into the room, or to give his vote if he had been minded so to do. Unquestionably there appeared to have been much said that ought not to have been said; but I cannot say that the election ought on those grounds to be set aside. At the usual hour of meeting the room appears to be nearly full. Mr. Austin and Mr. Crossley made their appearance, and were received both with cheers and with marks of disapproba tion. Mr. Austin, however, took the chair, and transacted part of the usual business of the meeting, but he stopped before the committee of management was elected, and declared that the business of the meeting was finished. He was met by a request that the main business, namely, the election of the governing body for the next year, should be proceeded with, but he positively refused to go on to the election. For this con duct he was spoken of at the hearing in very strong language, and it was asserted that in so doing he was actuated by fraud. In justice to Mr. Austin I feel bound to say that, though in my opinion he acted very erroneously, there was nothing in the evidence that justified such an accusation. His reasons for the course he adopted were explained by Mr. Smyley. It appeared that rules altering the mode of election of the committee of management, after having been some time in formation, had been adopted by a committee of the society, and were then before the Registrar of Friendly Societies for registration. It was stated that Mr. Austin expected to receive them from the registrar at any time, and being desirous that the meeting should be adjourned so that the election might take place under the new rules, he refused to proceed under the old rules. Now, it was unfortunate that the question whether the rules had been then registered or not should have been left in doubt. The communication between London and Blackburn is such that it might have been known, up to within a very short time before the meeting, whether or not the new rules had been registered. And I think it was the duty of those managing the meeting to have ascertained |
